I don’t think it’s a probably to treat the word true as meaning whatever the hardware interprets it too mean
Your sentence doesn’t make sense, but keep in mind that we’re talking about what your local, particular, individual hardware interprets it to mean. My hardware (my screen) will likely interpret it differently. Screens of random people will interpret it differently again.
Also a lot of LCD screens use what’s known at TN (twisted nematic) panels and the great majority of them are 6-bit panels, that is, they drive pixels at only 2^6 = 64 levels. So, for example, they can only show you 63 levels of blue (0 is off/black) even though the standard software treatment of color is 8 bits per primary for 256 levels. The TN screens mitigate this problem through dithering.
Human vision is highly adaptive to ambient light, in particular its color temperature. We perceive colors differently in the sunlight, in the shade, or under a tungsten lamp. And these are full-spectrum light sources. Fluorescent lights are not, they have spikes and voids in their spectrum and that affects certain colors under them as well.
Yes, there should have been the word “problem” when I wrote the word “probably”.
As I said, it’s complicated.
I know that human vision is complicated.
I however also know my bit about measurement theory. The important thing isn’t that a measurement is “true” but that that it has features like sensitivity and specificity. Accuracy and precision are other words to speak about measurements.
When dealing with a complex subject the important thing is whether your map of reality is good enough for the purpose for which you want to use it. I think the way my computer models colors is good enough to produce a valid training effect that helps me to get better at distinguishing colors.
I could create a randomly generated filtered deck out of 100 mature Anki color cards and test it at the computer of someone else and see whether the particularities of my specific computer monitor produce a problem. It’s a question that has an empiric answer and in a year when I have put more training into the colors I probably will do something like that. At the moment I have one day 70% correct cards and the next day 85% right cards, so it’s not stable enough for good test.
My notebook has a slightly different color profile than my 24″ monitor. Switching between the two doesn’t produce issues I can perceive. It doesn’t feel like everything is suddenly wrong. My brain seems to be able to make the necessary adjustments that I can still answer the cards correctly.
Let’s use meatspace examples. Do you want to be able to look at a wall and say “this is color X”? Do you want to to be able to look at two walls side by side and say “These are different colors”? Do you want to be able look at a wall, look at another wall the next day and say “This is the same color as I saw yesterday”?
Being able to answer the question: What color is this isn’t very useful. It’s not what separates the person who rather wants to be deaf from the person who rather wants to be deaf. I want is a cure for my partial blindness. I want to perceive more bits of information through the visual channel.
I don’t care for ‘is’ or ‘true’. I’m post- aristotelean. To quote the constructivist Heinz von Foerster: Truth is the invention of a liar. Just in case you think, I’m off-topic, I’m not. Those Anki cards are a result of among other things reading Korzybski’s Science and Sanity.
To go back to questions I want to be able to notice if a website I visit changes their color scheme in a way that exchanges navy with midnightblue just as I’m now able to notice a change from red to green.
Given that your brain’s processing bandwidth is severely limited
I don’t think there a good reason to believe that. I think quite often the limiting factor is time spent in deliberate practice and not lack of neurons or similar hardware problems.
Your sentence doesn’t make sense, but keep in mind that we’re talking about what your local, particular, individual hardware interprets it to mean. My hardware (my screen) will likely interpret it differently. Screens of random people will interpret it differently again.
Also a lot of LCD screens use what’s known at TN (twisted nematic) panels and the great majority of them are 6-bit panels, that is, they drive pixels at only 2^6 = 64 levels. So, for example, they can only show you 63 levels of blue (0 is off/black) even though the standard software treatment of color is 8 bits per primary for 256 levels. The TN screens mitigate this problem through dithering.
Human vision is highly adaptive to ambient light, in particular its color temperature. We perceive colors differently in the sunlight, in the shade, or under a tungsten lamp. And these are full-spectrum light sources. Fluorescent lights are not, they have spikes and voids in their spectrum and that affects certain colors under them as well.
As I said, it’s complicated.
Yes, there should have been the word “problem” when I wrote the word “probably”.
I know that human vision is complicated.
I however also know my bit about measurement theory. The important thing isn’t that a measurement is “true” but that that it has features like sensitivity and specificity. Accuracy and precision are other words to speak about measurements.
When dealing with a complex subject the important thing is whether your map of reality is good enough for the purpose for which you want to use it. I think the way my computer models colors is good enough to produce a valid training effect that helps me to get better at distinguishing colors.
I could create a randomly generated filtered deck out of 100 mature Anki color cards and test it at the computer of someone else and see whether the particularities of my specific computer monitor produce a problem. It’s a question that has an empiric answer and in a year when I have put more training into the colors I probably will do something like that. At the moment I have one day 70% correct cards and the next day 85% right cards, so it’s not stable enough for good test.
My notebook has a slightly different color profile than my 24″ monitor. Switching between the two doesn’t produce issues I can perceive. It doesn’t feel like everything is suddenly wrong. My brain seems to be able to make the necessary adjustments that I can still answer the cards correctly.
What do you mean by that?
Let’s use meatspace examples. Do you want to be able to look at a wall and say “this is color X”? Do you want to to be able to look at two walls side by side and say “These are different colors”? Do you want to be able look at a wall, look at another wall the next day and say “This is the same color as I saw yesterday”?
Being able to answer the question: What color is this isn’t very useful. It’s not what separates the person who rather wants to be deaf from the person who rather wants to be deaf. I want is a cure for my partial blindness. I want to perceive more bits of information through the visual channel.
I don’t care for ‘is’ or ‘true’. I’m post- aristotelean. To quote the constructivist Heinz von Foerster: Truth is the invention of a liar. Just in case you think, I’m off-topic, I’m not. Those Anki cards are a result of among other things reading Korzybski’s Science and Sanity.
To go back to questions I want to be able to notice if a website I visit changes their color scheme in a way that exchanges navy with midnightblue just as I’m now able to notice a change from red to green.
Ah. Well, this is useful to know.
Given that your brain’s processing bandwidth is severely limited I think it’s mostly an issue of controlling your attention but experimenting is good.
I don’t think there a good reason to believe that. I think quite often the limiting factor is time spent in deliberate practice and not lack of neurons or similar hardware problems.